Overdrive...is it heresy?

[Ed Miller]

My 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton has a crusing speed of no more than 50 to 55 mph. By installing an overdrive unit I can increase my cruising speed and reduce my engine speed. If I go ahead with the installation am I committing heresy?

[Guest]

Is "over-drive" heresay...?<P>Nope...it is common sense ! First of all...50 mph is WAY too fast for a car of the early 1930's...given their absurdly low final drive ratios, long strokes, and "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings.<P>Do the math...at 50 mph...that long stroke engine is spinning FASTER than a modern car's does at 100....! And the modern car has superior bearings, and a much shorter stroke (thus much less "loadings" on the vital rotating parts).<P>Under the broad heading of "over drives" there are a number of ways to bring the r.p.m. of the old cars down to modern (meaning SURVIVABLE) levels. There are a number of ways to "re gear" old cars so as to enable them to cruise effortlessly at normal highway speeds. GO TO IT !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Ed Miller]

I knew I could count on Peter for an erudite opinion. The Cadillac has a 4.60:1 rearend which is standard for a 140" wheelbase 1932 Cadillac such as mine. The "high speed" rearend is a breath taking 4:31:1 rearend, not much better than what I have. The biggest stumbling block to installing an overdrive is that the driveshaft is enclosed in a torque tube. I discussed this with a friend who has installed seven O/D units in his Marmons, some of which have torque tubes. He recommended I use the same o/d company he uses. The price is extremely reasonable, $1,175. I remove the torque tube. They install the unit. And I reinstall the torque tube with the o/d and the job is done. The price of a high speed rearend starts at $2,500 and goes up from there. I look to low engine speed cruising starting this summer.

[Guest]

Eddie...good luck..you are going to LOVE it...!<P>PFH

[Guest]

Eddie<BR>I would go with new rear end gears, something on the order of 3.55:1. You acceleration would still be good and the rpms would be considerable lower. As rare as 32 Caddys are it could prove difficult and expensive to convert back from overdrive if you ever wanted to do so. Changing the rear gears also maintains the original look, in case you ever want to show the car.

[Guest]

Eddie says, "...cruising speed of no more than 50 to 55 mph, ...can increase my cruising speed..." through the use of overdrive.<P>As you install your overdrive or higher-speed rear axle gears, you may want to consider what it would take to turn or stop that car from the 65 or 70 mph you'll be traveling. Primitive brakes and narrow tires with hard compounds do make for safe high speed driving. <P>As long as you're modifying the car for higher speed, suspension, steering, brakes and tires ought to be looked at as well.

[Guest]

Bill<BR>I have a friend who is doing a frame off on a 32 caddy right now. From looking at the suspension and brakes I would say that they are both capable of adequate control up to 80 or so, perhaps a bit more. He is going to change rear gearing just to get a more relaxed touring speed.

[Guest]

I agree with Terry - any of the high quality high performance "super luxury" cars from the early 1930's on (that we now call TRUE classics )....have excellent brake swept lining area ratios to weight. Yes, REPEATED extreme speed stops WILL get you brake "fade" that would not be incurred with a disc set-up, but I rather doubt it this fellow is going to enter his car in a "hare and hounds" type sports car race....!<P>As for suspension, assuming the shock absorbers are operational, there is certainly no problem in "handling" - remember the roads our classics were designed for....they HANDLE....<P>The above comments assume a classic is properly maintained. Obviously, a cosmetic restoration on a worn out chassis, with sloppy steering and badly set up brakes, is NOT relevant to the above comments...! <BR>( Sadly, many owners of COSMETICALLY restored classics have NO idea how spectacularly well these cars drive and handle, simply because the restorer correctly recognized most people couldn't care less...they just want a piece of rolling costume jewlery to take to a car show.....My own personal slogan is.."drive it or junk it"...my '38 Packard V-12 is no cream puff...but it has been maintained as a serviceable automobile. While, in my role as a Packard V-12 fan, I would have to say Cadillacs are good for nothing but boat anchors.......let's admit WHY we called the "best of the best" of the classic era's "super luxury cars"....CLASSICS.....it's because they WERE...and ARE....! Go to it...you will LOVE the vastly improved utility of an overdrive ( or "high speed rear end" ) TRUE classic.....! <P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs

[Ed Miller]

Regarding the issue of safety: The 1932 Cadillac V8 and V12 are identical vehicles except for the engine, length of torque tube, the V12 has a brake booster and the V8 does not, also the"V" emblem is differant. The brakes are identical. The booster only means one need apply less pressure to get the same effect. Body style for body style o the V8 is several hundred pounds lighter than the comparable V12. I have set up the brakes and suspension properly. They are both superb...for the era. I don't expect to be going much faster than 60 mph. When I do so it will be in a very straight line and with little traffic to worry about. You see, I enjoy life and want to enjoy more of it. Nevertheless, with the O/D I expect I can cruise in the mid 60s with no strain on the engine and do so safely. <BR>By the way, my 1933 Packard 12 Convertible Sedan has a 4:06 to 1 rearend. That can cruise at 70 mph. <BR>I don't want to install a high speed rearend because they are considerably more expensive and I can convert back fairly easily if I desire.

[Guest]

Eddie...NO NO NO...dont do it..DONT drive your Packard Twelve at 70 mph....that 4:06 final drive ratio means your long stroke V-12 is thrashing around with MANY MANY times the "intertial loads" on its crank-shaft and rod bearings...as would a modern car at 100 mph..and the modern cars have much shorter strokes and "insert" connecting rod bearings.<P>The discussion I just entered the other day holds just as true for your Packard Twelve. I have a Packard Twelve ( later model than yours...'38...with the "insert" type connecting rod bearings )...and I re-geared it back in the mid 1960's...and have been enjoying extreme-speed crusing ever since.<P>Sure...the ORDINARY old cars of the 1930's had miserable brakes and marginal handling. ONE of the many reasons the vastly superior super-luxury / super powered cars we now call "classics"...are CALLED true classics..is their superior handling. Any of the big-engined TRUE classics of the 1930's....even the late 1920's...would benefit from re-gearing so as to bring their engine rpms at crusing speed down where their designers planned for. The only qualification is...you go back in time far enough..and you are going to face TWO wheel brakes...I would NOT want to try a panic stop from 80 mph in a TWO wheel brake car. I HAVE had to make hard stops in my Packard Twelve at extreme speeds. SURE you only get one or two high speed stops before "brake fade" sets in...after all..there is a REASON why high performance cars have disc brakes..!<P>Again....re-gear...save your classic's engine...make it more fun to drive..and you WILL drive it more....what could be more fun than sailing leisurely across country in a big-engined TRUE classic....!<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, Arizona

[Guest]

Eddie:<P>One word of caution on re-gearing: if you go too low numerically, your car may not overcome the wind loads in high gear. I speak from personal experience from my misspent youth playing with motorcycles. It's easy to convince yourself that lower is better and you can readily change the final drive ratio on a motorcycle. But you will find that you quickly reach the point where the wind drag grows faster than engine torque, and the car becomes so lifeless in high gear that it isn't usable.<P>And don't forget how hard it is to get an under-geared car started on a hill on a hot day with a full load of passengers.<P>Suggest you try to find someone with a similar car who has changed the final drive ratio before you do it. It may be a better idea just to drive a bit slower. Or go with the overdrive, at least you can turn it off if the ratio is too high.<P>Good luck<P>Bill S.

[Guest]

Buick...I think you are confused...we are not talking about the ORDINARY old cars of the 1930's in here....you are correct in that an ORDINARY old car would most certainly NOT have the raw power to handle a "high" (numerically lower) final drive ratio. But when we talk "classic"...at least between people who KNOW what we mean by REAL "classic"...we are talking only about a very special kind of car...the "super luxury" cars of the classic era. When we got togethe orginally to participate in THIS particular Club..our focus was on the most elegant, most powerful cars of the late 1920's thru 1942. These cars most certainly DO have the power to cruise comfortably in the extreme speed ranges. And they have the "support" systems..such as superior brakes and cooling systems, to "deliver" this mile after mile.<P>What many people do not understand...is that the typical NEW car buyer of the 1930's..especially the buyer of the biggest, most powerful, most luxurious cars, was NOT a "car buff" as we understand the term today. They were older people..many came to maturity at or before the dawn of the mechanized era...often had NO understanding of technology. It was considered a "status" thing if your car could start in high gear from a dead stop, and give sprightly performance in HIGH gear without shifting at very low speeds. Given the dismal condition of the highway system of those years, very low final drive ratios were the "norm". Of COURSE the engineers knew better, but there was nothing they could do about it. There was an attempt by Packard around 1931 to get new car owners to appreciate the merits of "high speed" final drive ratios..and it was a disaster ( they equipped a few cars with 3:31 ratios...and virtually EVERY one of them was returned to the factory by irate dealers and customers...!)<P>Unfortunately, greedy people who just wanted to sell old cars, have gotten into our Club and dramatically broadened the definition and use of the term "classic". I would certainly agree that some dinky little Standard Eight limo...with that silly 320 cu in motor, and a large "wetted" frontal area, wouldn't do well with a high speed final drive ratio. But my comments were not directed towards the medium price "ordinary" cars. Again...my comments were assuming we were talking about the big POWERFUL super luxury cars that are REAL "classics".<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Peter:<P>Somehow, your posts make we want to puke.<P>I know that you think the REAL CLASSICS that you rever hardly follow the laws of physics. You must know that the '32 Cadillac under disucssion has a mere 115 horsepower flathead V-8 with specs similar to engines in dreadful (ughhhh!) mid-priced cars.<P>You must consider picking up a Peterbuilt, they have huge engines and cruise for hundreds of thousands of miles at high speed. I'll bet it will remind you of your FULL CLASSIC.<P>Bill S

[Guest]

Come on guys, LIGHTEN UP! I didn't invent those LOUSY, WORTHLESS mid-priced NON CLASSICS. Can't you TAKE A JOKE? (Where the heck's my Britney tape). <P>SURE it's got 115 HORSEPOWER, but that's CLASSIC HORSEPOWER! Much different from mid-priced MULEpower. (I know I left it here somewhere).<P>When we designed all those full CLASSICS, we made darn sure you could drive the bejabbers out of them ALL DAY! UP HILL! IN THE DESERT! (Oh, here it is. Now, where's that darn TV?)<P>Where was I? Oh, YES. CLASSICS. Wetted area, piston speed, LOUSY poured bearings, speed, CHEAP, STUPID, LOUSY, SCUM mid-priced cars. <BR>(OK, there's the TV, now where's my Lazy-boy). <P>Look I got to go now. We'll talk later. LAUGH IT UP!

[Guest]

Isn't it interesting that some sixty years after the last REAL true classic was manufactured, ( what a tribute to their superiority over the ordinary cars of their day....and to their designers/builders...that they STILL generate such jealousy and resentment....( and such childish antics as coming in here under counterfiet names..?<P>(the REAL) Peter Hartmann<BR> Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

Buickplus :<P>You apparently are not familiar with the term "wetted area". The fellow who asked about overdrives does, as you point out, have the smallest-engined of the Cadillacs available that year. However, he has an open car. There is substantially less wind resistance than a closed body of the same era.<P>No doubt he would not get anywhere NEAR the performance of the larger-engined Cadillacs, but the fact remains he would get much better (and less engine-wearing) use out of his classic with an over-drive.<P>The Classic Car Club Of America, and the cars it came into being to protect and preserve, are not for everyone. Perhaps if you find discussions of the "best of the best" offensive to you, you should ask yourself if you are in the right chat-room. <P>My understanding is that there IS a Buick chat, where the people with the smaller-engined Buicks find others whose interests are similar. <P>My suggestion is that you would find this form of communication more worth-while, if you would contribute and share TECHNICAL information relating to CLASSIC cars, rather than dwell on personalities.<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ.<P>Personal note to other Classic Car Club members. It appears we have been "invaded" by some "sour grapes" people from the now defunct "ClassicCarChat". You should anticipate "grousing" and discomfort with our Club, its principles, and the cars our Club was to preserve, and, in particular, watch for COUNTERFIET names - these guys rarely have the courage to stand behind the issues they propose - instead, they think it is "cute" to "counter-fiet" legit. member's names.

[Guest]

I....................<P>don't................<P>even.................<P>have.................<P>an...................<P>opinion..............<P>Please don't hurt me!<P>You guys are mean!

[Guest]

Hey...Chuck...that's no fair...c'mon, man....you GOT to have an opinion....! <P>PFH

[Guest]

Ok, as long as you guys promise not to hurt me.<P>I think a mild overdrive ratio like .75 to .9 could not hurt anything. The power needed at highway speed is a fraction of the engines actual capability. But finding any type of overdrive that's available for any kind of reasonable money is going to be hard to find.<P>Remember the old two speed rearends, what a great idea. Too bad they still aren't produced today. I love those old Halibrand rears too with the externally changeable spur gears, another great idea that should be revived.<P>If you didn't mind the hassle and cost of a Halibrand swap you could get the best of both worlds, just change out the spur gears when you intend to hit the highway. It all depends how original you want to keep it. If it was mine, I would keep her as is and drive a little slower. <P>You get to see more of the world that way.<P>And you know the view of the world through an antique windscreen should be savoured not rushed through.<P>Please don't hit me.

[Guest]

I think that if I were in Ed's place I would have the overdrive unit installed. The convertible sendan that Ed has when the top is up should have the same wetted area as a closed car. It seems that Buick 90 series from 1931 to 1942 are considered Classics. I have seen some custom bodied Buick 90's that would knock your socks off. Peter your idea of what a true Classic is ( PARDON THE PUN) is way out in left field. John Shireman Jersey Shore Pa. owner 53 Packard

[Guest]

I have a 1932 v-8 256 5 passenger phaeton and it has a 4.6 rear end. The car has plenty of stump pulling power with this low rear end that would be great for the<BR>road conditions of the 1930's. I am going to change the rear ratio, not to rip up and down the road but to lower the engine speed during normal driving. I think changing the ring gear will do alot less harm than mounting a overdrive unit under the car. When someone gets the car in the future it will be unaltered to anyone looking under the car. Jeff

[Guest]

Hey guys. I drive a low class car ( the only comparison to a Classic is that it has an internal combustion engine. My 1930 Pontiac has a 4.3 to 1 rear end and has 60 puny advertised HP (28BHP). I can cruise all day at 2743 rpm 55 MPH and have driven for half ad at a steady 3047 rpm 60 MPH. I have a speeding ticket for 70 MPH 3555 rpm. I have been doing this since 1959 and have only overhauled the engine once. ( over all 3 valve grinds in 470,000 miles). So I think some of the Classic drivers are just shy on the loud pedal. I'm sure lots of them could be driven quite abit faster than they are. You can bet you boots I shall eternally regret not buying a 7 pass 34 Packhard when I had the chance.

[Guest]

Harter Peetman et al:<P>This forum may have been invaded by non-classicists, but you must admit that at least it has become a bit more lively. You could hardly get through the cobwebs on the posts before.<P>And just for the record, I am a dues paying member of the CCCA and have been for around 25 years. The only Full Classic I have owned was a Buick 90 that I traded a few years back for a vastly superior non-classic, a '37 LaSalle convertible coupe. <P>Why stay in the club? That's a very good question.....

[Guest]

Buicksplus~<P>I too have a 37 LaSalle Convertible. I find it remarkable to park it next to my 34 Packard and consider the huge differences in styling, manufacturing technology (wood vs. steel body framing), etc., in only three years. Compare a Ford Taurus of fifteen years ago to today's and they more or less look identical. The industry was going through big changes at the time. <P>PS this other classic stuff is all rubbish, the rantings of an old fool. Don't puke on your computer, the keys get sticky.

[Guest]

Mr Hartmann<P>In order to support your singular agenda, you tend to throw around technical terms and concepts with little regard to their true meaning or application. <P>I think an example is your use of the phrase 'wetted area'. Simply put, wetted area is the surface area of an object in contact with the airstream. The phrase is generally, almost exclusively, used in a discussion of aerodynamics as related to aircraft. For example, the wetted area of a wing is slightly greater than the surface area in planform, because the surface of the wing is curved and the air goes a further distance over it. Modern vehicles concern themselves with the concept, but with 'barn doors' of the thirties it is largely irrelevant due to the then disinterest and lack of study in efficiently penetrating the air . <P>You somehow bring wetted area into a discussion regarding the aerodynamics of a thirties touring car, claiming that an open car has 'substantially less wind resistance than a closed car'. I'd like to see your data, or even hear a detailed discussion leading to this conclusion. <P>You may be confusing the concept of drag with wetted area. A sedan or 'closed car' with the windows rolled up probably has a lot less drag than a similar model open car. You made the original assertion, prove me wrong.

[Mark Huston]

I am not an expert in aerodynamics all I can offer to this thread is some personal experience. My previous collector car, recently sold, was a 1928 Studebaker President close coupled sedan with 131 inch wheel base, in line 8 engine, 115 horsepower. It had a real low geared rear end. Prior to putting an overdrive in the car it felt and sounded like it was working to hard going over 50. After, installing the overdrive I did drive the car in September 1997 on a trip of 3,000 miles through 5 states, at one point I crossed the Salt Flates of Utah doing 70mph. This trip was a camping trip that included the whole family and all of our gear on or in the car, no trailer or modern chase car. The only other car on this trip was a 1928 Studebaker President Roadster with a high speed rear end pulling a trailer. This trip was written up in a couple car club magazines. I loved that overdrive, the only down fall was the car looked original until you looked under it and there was that modern transmission/overdrive unit. Hated that part. <BR>I have sense replaced the 1928 President with a 1929 Studebaker President Brougham. I have found a set of high speed ring and pinnion gears. The stock rear end is real low (4.7 to 1) and top speed is around 52mph. My brother has a 1929 Studebaker President 7 passenger touring, his car and mine both have the same 135 inch wheel base, with 336 staight 8 and 115 horsepower. His car is much quiter than mine at 55-60, because his car came with a factory high speed rear end (3.3 to 1). <BR>Having driven both my brother's touring and my brougham it is a toss up which has more wind drag. With the touring top up (the only way my brother will drive his car) his has more wind drag. That touring top on a long wheel base car like his is a big sail catching a lot of air when you are going along at highway speed. It reminds me of the space shuttle coming in for a landing with all those parachutes deployed. His wife and kids won't ride in the back of the touring, they get in my brougham to get out of the wind!<BR>One other point, my brother and I have driven our cars over the Sierra-Nevada mountains, and other road conditions, he has had no power problems with his factory high speed rear end. When I had my 1928 President with the overdrive I had to keep taking it in and out of overdrive to get over the mountains - he never had to down shift and kept riding my bumper beeping his horn to get me to go faster! <BR>I will not go with overdrive again, will stick with the high speed gears, looking forward to installing them in my Brougham now that I have them.

[Guest]

Mark:<P>Your trip sounds like so much fun! I have a '27 Buick and would like to make a trip like that some day. I don't think it will top 50, even if it had an overdrive, though.<P>I do wonder if you have the 3.3 ratio right. That is an enormous difference relative to 4.7, do you really mean 4.3? With the huge wheels on these cars, I doubt if they could carry a 3.3.<P>I concur with your comments on the looks of the overdrive, they really do stand out when you look under a car that has one. What ratio was your overdrive?

[Guest]

Hey..Buick Plus...I don't understand...you say you traded your Buick Series 90 for a La Salle...and you think the La Salle is a BETTER car..? <P>Buick Plus - would like to see your analysis...let me explain...although a confirmed Packard Twelve fanatic..I have for many years had a secret admiration for Buicks of the same era. Being a snob, naturally I much prefer the BIG Buicks...<P>(side note to John Shinerman...yeah, John...of course I agree with you about Buicks - no question that the 90 series Buicks were great cars, and certainly entitled to be called "classics"...and of course a Buick Century of the same era would blow my doors off ! ) (at least for a short run...remember, John...Buick was still using poured babbit rod bearings into the 1940's....and they could NOT handle SUSTAINED extreme speeds...)<P>Anyway...Buick Plus....my own personal opinion is that the 90 Series Buicks were pretty neat cars, and much "more car"...and better "performers" than the La Salle. <P>On the other side of that story, I have friends who have La Salles and love 'em.<P>Since you have owned BOTH...you are in a much better position then I to comment intelligently on this... What can you add to our knowledge about this...?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

For UnRegistered Bill P<P>Yes..I agree with 99 2/3 of what you said in your "post". But I am not sure you are correct that open and closed cars of that era have similar wind resistance/drag.<P>I can tell you that over around 80 mph...the "lift" on the fabric top on my '38 Packard V-12 is getting dramatic. And I do recall that most, if not all of the "speed trial" demonsrations of the manufacturers when these cars were new...were done with open cars. Of particular interest is an article you MAY be able to track down in an old SAE publication ...early 1930's....about the famous "race with a golf ball" that Packard publisized to introduce the then brand new Packard Twelve (that one year (1932) they called it the Twin Six..although you probably know the '32-39 Twelve was an entirely differenct concept then the "real" TWIN SIX 1914-1922).<P>Anyway, a supposedly "stock" new '32 Packard Twelve (sorry...Twin Six) was "raced against a golf ball. The golf ball was clocked at 118..if I recall...and the Packard..clocked at 124 mph.<P>Of course the car was "stock"....yeah..of course they lied...! Well...yes and no. See..what they did...was to put a VERY high speed (low numerically) gear ratio. Point is...they did this in an OPEN car. <P>I do agree with you...I am not sure I know what I am talking about when we get into the details of wind resistance. Yes, I do have some familiarity with aero terms, but that is a separate story probably of little interest to our fellow Packard buffs.<P>Bottom line - it appears we ALL agree that lowering engine rpms of these long stroke monsters enables us to get more use out of them, getting them out on the road more often without being a traffic hazard...so that more people can see em and ask questions about them. And THAT I think is spendid !<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

See, Buicksplus, I can insult you AND kiss & make up IN THE SAME BREATH. <BR>Your car is JUNK, please tell me ALL about it.

[Guest]

For Reid:<P>Yeah...I also have seen examples of people literally driving the hell out of these older cars and getting away with it ( for a while ) without tossing a connecting rod thru the side of the crank-case.<P>But I think it is a dangerous and un-wise practice ( to drive stock geared pre-war cars over around 50 mph or over about 2,500 rpm). There is NO avoiding the fact that the poured babbit connecting rod bearing is far less tolerant of the stresses of high speeds. And there is NO avoiding the fact that the old long stroke motors put FAR greater stress on their connecting rods and crank-shafts, than a modern engine at the SAME rpm.<P>"puttering about" with the stock rear ends on isolated back roads is certainly fun, and obviously more "historically correct" than blasting over a super highway at modern speeds. I do both, and enjoy each experience for what it is. No question that the "old road" / historically accurate type driving is fun, giving you a "feel" of the times. BUT....as I noted above, getting these cars out on the road where people can see em (without either exposing the car to higher rpms than are wise) and/or without being a traffic hazard...is also neat. <P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

To Unregistered:<P>I will not repeat this suggestion. Please center your discussion on issues relevant to this Chat Room. This is not the place for a "personality-oriented". I am sure you will be welcome in here if you confine your comments to issues of interest to what we are here for. There are mechanisms available to assist you in finding other venues of expression, if you insist on your present "personality oriented" diatribe.<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Mr Hartmann<P>Lacking better information, I can only speculate on speed and drag on open versus closed cars. That's why I asked you to expand on your assertion. <P>I'm well aware of the golf ball stunt, it was more a publicity opportunity than a scientific test. An open car would have photographed better among other things. <P>In thinking about it, the closed car is heavier and that is not insignificant. All these cars had comparatively low power to weight ratios, and to drag around another two or three hundred pounds in the form of top and doors would have hurt their top speed. <P>However, the open car presents a lot more drag, similar to that of a modern pickup truck with the tailgate up and no tonneau cover. I think I read somewhere that, above some threshold figure, power requirement goes up with the square of speed due the aerodynamic drag. If that's indeed true, it means that to add another ten mph, you need an additional one hundred horsepower. <P>It would have been interesting to have taken that same twelve cylinder chassis and mounted on it Mr. MaCauley's custom sedan, with its low-slung roof. All else equal, I think it would have gone faster than the roadster.

[Guest]

Peter:<P>Comparing cars I have owned is like comparing my children. They are different but I love them all. I can't say that any of them are my favorites.<P>My Buick 90 is a very fine car that I spent nine years lovingly restoring. Lots of power and it ran beautifully. The looks (1939 model) were controversial, but it grew on me. And on tour, we never had trouble packing, we just took everything.<P>Comparing the Buick to the '37 LaSalle is like comparing a stretch limo to a Porsche. I will tell you that the LaSalle is more fun to drive and accelerates stronger than the Buick, mainly because it is a lighter car. I miss the Buick, but I have never, never regretted making the trade. I don't think many at this forum would regret making a similar one.

[Ed Miller]

Here's a little more information regarding the overdrive unit I am contemplating installing in my 1932 Cadillac V8 All Weather Phaeton. The unit is a R10 Borg Warner. The reduction is approximately 30% or a reduction to 3:22 to 1 from 4:6 to 1. I remove the torque tube and after the overdrive unit is installed, I reinstall the torque tube cum overdrive unit. Cost...$1,175. I have two quotes for a high speed rearend viz.: $2,500 and $2,800 and I install it.<BR>Peter...I only hit 70 mph in my 1933 Packard 12 a couple of times and only for a few moments. But it was wonderful!

[Guest]

This has been a rather fun string of conversation. The hobby is still healthy for sure, if we can all talk about our cars like we are king of the dog pile. Now to the overdrive. I also have 2 cents to add. I am in process of restoring another one of those dreaded "P" cars. Fortunately for me, mine would have to be a 1935 Pierce-Arrow 1255. I would guess that many of us underscore this brand of "P" car. I just look at the accomplishments of speed demon, Ab Jenkins on the Salt Flats. He based his early cars on the Pierce-Arrow 12.(That is why I chose the P-A) I am sure he used wise means to slow down engine RPM as the P-A has plenty of HP in stock form.(I won't brag here) It is just not kind to drive this car with low gears at high engine speeds. My P-A has an open drive line making it easy for me to install a midship gear splitter. I can have good low end in the city and good top end on the open road. Gearing to change from about 4.7 to 3.5 with the spitter. Hope we can all enjoy our cars the way that is the best for each of us. Road Giants Forever..........Alan

[Guest]

Eddie:<P>I think the .7 overdrive might just be a bit too extreme, but you sure will be able to tell the difference! Seems to me that most factory overdrives on cars are in the .75 to .9 range. <P>It really depends on how much reserve power you have in the engine and the breadth of the torque curve. I think it will probably work OK. You might ask what options you have if the ratio turns out to be less than ideal. Is there another unit that can be bolted in place, or other gearsets installed?

[Guest]

To Peter<BR>Of course you would not be expected to know that the early Pontiacs had a "short stroke" engine. It was supposed to be the first commercially produced one. 3.31 x 3.88 inches. Of course by todays standards this is a laugh. I do though agree with you somewhat. Because I have driven my car for fourty-three years and so many miles I feel confortable doing it. I run 20 weight oil and of course watch all the guages and the mirrors and ahead of me as well. It's not the engine that I worry about and it's not the brakes it's the small footprint. 500x19 tires don't stick to the pavement all that well.<BR>The main thing I believe is that we should all drive our vehicles the way we are comfortable and that we should continue to share on these forums. I sure do wish that I had bought that Classic Packhard though.<BR>Happy Motoring to you all.

[Mark Huston]

Buicksplus:<BR>Yes that trip was a blast, look forward to finding an excuse to do it again someday. The only problem I had on the whole trip was when I was in Logan, UT, the dual points went out of synch and I had to do a quick adjustment of the points, and then at the end of the trip I left from Sutherlin, OR in a pouring rain and after about 30 mins of driving the windshield wiper (only has one) quit working, drove to Redding, CA (over 200 miles) in the rain before I got out of it. <BR>Regarding the ratios, my memory is not what it once was. I am at that stage of life when I walk into a room and can't remember why. <BR>Anyway, I checked my current Studebaker it has a 4.8 to 1 ratio (Dam, I hate that), my replacement gears that I will be installing are 3.5 to 1, my previous Studebaker had 4.3 to 1 and in overdrive the ratio was 3.4 to 1. I used a mid '70's Volvo transmission with manual overdrive. I was not able to reach my brother to confirm his ratio, but I am pretty sure it is around 3.3 or 3.4 to 1, As I recall it was about the same as my '28 was when in overdrive. All 3 cars have 19 inch wire wheels.

[Guest]

Reid...you lucky devil..I had NO idea there were engines of that short a stroke that far back ! The earliest "production" American motor I am aware of, is the '38 thru '40 Cadillac V-16 ( a flat-head...a whole different "kettle of fish" from the earlier and less efficient OVERHEAD VALVE V-16.)<BR>At one time I owned Mae West's '38 Series 90 Imperial (formal sedan ). Was definitely a smoother motor than my '38 Packard Twelve, but the Packard is a "sports car" by comparison - superior power in all speed ranges, much better handling. Now...where was I..yes..the short stroke Pontiac....yeah...much less loadings on the rod bearings with the shorter stroke....BUT...you still have poured babbit connecting rod bearings..unless you have converted over to modern insert-type rod bearings.<P>PFH<BR>Pete Hartmann